Hello,

my interest in ATV recently came back (my interests often vary and rotate from time to time). I don't have any and certainly don't have any money to buy one in a near future, but I enjoy surfing on manufacturers's website, in order to stay tuned I guess...

I don't have ATV myself, but my father has had one for years and I have had to use some because of my previous job.

Years ago, I remember that Suzuki were about the only to offer IRS, but I notice that it becomes more and more popular.

However, I'm not sure to understand this tendancy. You know, if we take a look at pick-up trucks and heavy trucks (Caterpillar, Komatsu, Volvo, see what I mean by heavy trucks) they always have solide axles with the exception of some pick-up trucks having independant suspensions but on the front wheels ONLY. And then again, where as Chevy has IFS on their 3/4 ton and 1 ton line, Ford and Dodge kept the front solid axles on their 3/4 ton and 1 ton line.

Jeep is also a good example, they kept solid axles (rear and front) on their reputable off-roader YJ and I think the Grand Cherokee also has solid axles. Moreover, a lot of off-roaders swap the IFS on their pick-up truck for a solid axle for more off-road capabilities and more ruggedness.

So, my point is that a solid axle type construction is more rugged/tough/robust construction than an independant suspension type construction, right?

My question, since ATV are subjected to abuses often in remote areas, wouldn't it be better/safer/more reliable to have them always mounted on solid axle, at least on the rear wheels?

My father has a 1986 Honda Big Red and it has seen a lot of hauling, off-roading in mud/snow/sand etc and we have never ever put any attention on the solid rear axle/swing arm type suspension and it still working like new, 20 years later! I don't know, but I doubt that IRS could be that tough over time...

What do you guys think?

I am by NO mean a mechanic, but I tend to think that the simpler the mechanic is, the tougher it is, and a solid rear axle/swing arm type suspension is a simpler design than a IRS.

 

SRA: tried and true, good for working and the trails.


IRS: smoother ride, more ground clearance, better for conditions needing GC (mudding, rock crawling,snow, ect)


Both set-ups are capable of all above. The quad manufacturers will produce what the consumer wants and will buy.

 

yeah, you are right. the irs quads do have more problems with their drivetrain, but they are the quads to have when you want a nice ride and lots of ground clearance-its a trade off i guess

 

Youre thinking about this correctly. A solid axle is going to be tougher, do harder loads better, and be cheaper to manufacture.

But it all depends on what a person wants. Not all of us use avts for only work. Alot of quads are only used for recreation, and as more of us get older, the priorities change. Lots of us want a quad that has a smooth ride, that soaks up bumps, and allows us to keep our backs and other body parts intact for a few more years. Also for rutted trails, theres nothing like having lots of ground clearance, which the irs quads can have
.
Solid axle quads are also much better for performance driving. All you have to do, is try power sliding a solid vs irs, and its very obvious, which will be more fun and solid feeling. Riding on off chamber corners and side hills, a quad with a solid axle will feel much more solid, and not nearly as tippy as a irs.

There are lots of choices in suspension, and engine type, tranny, and front differential. Most of us prioritize which features we want, and decide from there.

If you want comfort over brute ruggedness...go irs. And as far as travling in the deep woods, i wouldnt be concerned with either type of rear suspension, failing.

 

Comparing a quad to a heavy duty truck axle is apples to oranges. Truck axles have a SOLID axle with a shaft inside it that turns. And a truck has springs at each side..That allow the entire axle to flex........not a swing arm. A swing arm quads wheels can ONLY go up and down, but never flex sideways. ITS not even remotely comparable. There are huge busses with independent suspension that weigh over 20,000lbs. Its more an issue of cheapness of manufacture and design with pickup trucks...not the so much talked about ruggedness.

 

Utility ATV's solid rear axle are the same in that matter, look this pic:

http://powersports.honda.com/atvs/ut...elId=TRX500FA6


Well, a lot of Off-roaders spend a great bunch of time and money to swap their IFS for a solid axle on their pick-up trucks, there must be a reason for that. If it is not ruggedness, what is it?

 

No. Offroaders swap to a solid front axle for more flex. Thats ALL there is to it. Solid axles on full size vehicles flex better than they do on atvs. IFS and IRS are better on ATVs for trail riding.

 

I had an Arctic Cat with an articulating solid rear axle, I liked it (the axle set up) a lot.

powerstroke01, would you want IRS on your Z?

 

If it was the same set up as the outlanders sitting next to it in the garage then sure. It would look funny but id gain some clearence and some comfort. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

I agree the Outlander has a smart set-up. I almost bought one. If it had a 500cc, it might have pushed it into the lead. I wonder if they'll make a 600?

My first quad was a Banshee I bought new in 87 ($2799) and I just like the feel of the SRA. I cannot drive as aggressively and as comfortably with the IRS. Feels (and has been) unpredictable, but IRS does ride better.